My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2007_0129_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2007
>
2007_0129_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/10/2012 9:54:29 AM
Creation date
8/26/2009 3:19:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
241
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
.� <br />� <br />� <br />� <br />� <br />� <br />� <br />� <br />�� <br />11 <br />�� <br />�� <br />� r1 <br />�� <br />i� <br />i� <br />�� <br />�� <br />City Council Study Session <br />1/22/07 DRAFT Minutes Pg 19 of 21 <br />Councilinember Pust opined that, while the format of I�2.A's rental <br />licensing citizen advisory group was a fine format to follow, <br />published notice needed to be provided to citizens that this group was <br />being formed, to avoid perceptions and opinions that the Council was <br />"handpicking" or avoiding public participation in the process, even <br />though there were evident time frames to consider, given the <br />politically-sensitive nature of the issue and since it was a City <br />Council-initiated action. <br />Discussion included the best process to achieve the most public <br />participation from all interested parties; benefits of the ��A. process <br />due to the broad-based perspective achieved; actual application format <br />and process; interested people to-date and the need to balance <br />perspectives from the public, staff and commissions; policy objectives <br />being sought for refinement; a facilitator for the group; stalteholders <br />for development areas and community at-large representatives; and <br />how to publicize the need for public input. <br />� Community Development Director John Stark noted that while some <br />21 are policy issues, some issues are technical in nature; and expressed <br />�� staffs willingness to provide similar information to the study group as <br />�� provided to-date to the City Council, in addition to other helpful data <br />�� that was readily available, allowing people to respond to that <br />2� information than something more abstract. <br />��� <br />2� Mayor Klausing opined that, what appeared to be missing was the <br />2� policy objectives trying to be met by the City Council, when land use <br />�� applications that cause consternation were a normal part of the <br />�� planning process when lots were proposed to be subdivided and when <br />3 t the community was attempting to provide affordable housing options. <br />�2 <br />�� Councilmember Roe opined the need to address three specific items in <br />�� the language adopted in the moratorium ordinance; and supported the <br />�� use of Mr. Stark's November 20,2006 memorandum as a starting <br />��k point, and as a summary of issues needing clarification. <br />�� <br />�� Councilmember Pust opined the need to clarify the City Council's role <br />�� as it related to the Citizen's Advisory Group (i.e., meeting attendance; <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.